I don't even know why I bother trying to have meaningful discussions on this forum anymore. Our user base is too young and uninformed, most are incapable of critical thinking and need things spelled out for them. And the only intelligent users left, which there are many, have likely already caught on to this fact, and is probably why you rarely see them participating in discussions of this sort. Instead of thinking how to make new solutions work, the basic ideas are shut down immediately with little to zero informed and critical thought taking place whatsoever. And yes, I have an answer for the previous post, but it's an answer that the user who posted could figure out on his/her own with a tiny bit of mental energy. So I'll not spell it out this time.

The Fukushima reactors were using outdated equipment and weren't updated to modern nuclear standards. If they were updated with the state of the art technology, instead of 1970s technology its likely this would have never happened. Nuclear is one of the best and cleanest sources of energy production we got, and if we don't use nuclear, then what do we replace it with? We got nothing to fill that gap, that could produce energy on the same levels except for maybe coal. Solar/wind just aren't productive enough to compete with nuclear. Maybe in 20-50 years a working, efficient fusion reactor will be possible, but until then we are stuck with nuclear and coal as the main power generation sources. I don't want to pay 3 -4x more for my electric bill because some green nut thinks coal isn't clean enough and nuclear is too dangerous.

I don't even know why I bother trying to have meaningful discussions on this forum anymore. Our user base is too young and uninformed, most are incapable of critical thinking and need things spelled out for them. And the only intelligent users left, which there are many, have likely already caught on to this fact, and is probably why you rarely see them participating in discussions of this sort. Instead of thinking how to make new solutions work, the basic ideas are shut down immediately with little to zero informed and critical thought taking place whatsoever. And yes, I have an answer for the previous post, but it's an answer that the user who posted could figure out on his/her own with a tiny bit of mental energy. So I'll not spell it out this time.

They are not too young and uninformed. You are not willing to budge so they are going to so the same. Wind and solar are nice ideas but the ammount of land that would have to be used to produce the ammount of energy a nuclear plant can produce is rediculous. Let alone not reliable. Nuclear power is just too efficient to compare at the moment. One day it might catch up, but why do that when you can just do geothermal. California produces around 90% of the nations geothermal energy. Other than that until fusion is a containable source of continuous energy were stuck.
sent from droid.

I'm gonna weigh In here. I know its different radiation but I worked with radars in the military(radars used to track rounds fired from artilery) and in 2002 unbeknownst to us, for 24 hours our radar was turned on and radiating. It's a different radiation but according to one of the lead Endocrinologists for the va believes that's why I have low testosterone and am sterile. When I joined the army, during our radar school they kept talking about how "safe" it was, when our chief notified higher ups about the radar incident, we had a crap load of testing, were removed from our unit for 2 weeks and had to sign waivers(which we were threatened with article 15's if we refused to sign, I'm fighting those waivers now). Point is no one knows the real longterm effects of radiation.

The Fukushima reactors were using outdated equipment and weren't updated to modern nuclear standards. If they were updated with the state of the art technology, instead of 1970s technology its likely this would have never happened. Nuclear is one of the best and cleanest sources of energy production we got, and if we don't use nuclear, then what do we replace it with? We got nothing to fill that gap, that could produce energy on the same levels except for maybe coal. Solar/wind just aren't productive enough to compete with nuclear. Maybe in 20-50 years a working, efficient fusion reactor will be possible, but until then we are stuck with nuclear and coal as the main power generation sources. I don't want to pay 3 -4x more for my electric bill because some green nut thinks coal isn't clean enough and nuclear is too dangerous.

how is it the cleanest source of energy... from the poisoning that can happen to the nuclear waste, which takes ages to decompose once you run out of area to put it were does it go?

Only problem I see with uranium based nuclear power plants is the waste, stored like garbage in old mines and sea bottoms and who knows where else. I always think of humanity as a whole and when it gets to "work" like you can see it in The Matrix movie (not enslaved by AI, just the concept) its going to be when people evolve and this is the way. Casualties are irrelevant because all serves a whole. This is just my idea where humanity is heading or where it should be heading. With current technologies wind and solar panels are perfect energy sources for individuals and smaller groups living together. I myself warm my house and water with solar and geothermal energy and try stay as much independent form grid as possible.Edited by Use - 4/2/12 at 2:30am

They are a lot better at controlling the blades for wind, we just had one put in at the college I'm at. While they have brakes, they also have the ability to pivot everything on the machine. the blades can turn so the wind won't be caught, essentially braking them. No shattering, nothing, and I live in a highly windy area.

However I agree, nuclear is currently the only major energy source that fits our needs currently. The waste is moot ,newer reactors produce almost no waste.